Mike Allen at Time Magazine writes
today that Democrats have handed GOoPers a wedge issue for the Fall. The core issue, according to Mike Allen:
...the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.
Ugh, the MSM is already chewing up the GOP's talking points. More on the flip...
Mike Allen argues that the Democrats have given Republicans a gem. That gem is a wedge issue on national security that sounds like this: Either you stand for America or you stand for the Islamofascists/Terrorists/Bin Laden/<insert evil here>?. Or, the 2006 mid-term election version sounds like this: Do you stand with strong Democratic patriots like Joe Lieberman or with fringe, liberal hippies like Ned Lamont? This is not only a false dichotomy but also lazy reporting by Time Magazine.
The author tries to connect yesterday's primary to the McCaskill-Talent race:
One of the nip-and-tuck Senate races this year is in Missouri, and backers of Sen. Jim Talent are preparing an attack on his opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, that is emblematic of the sort that will be seen all over the country within 24 hours. "Does Claire McCaskill support the wishes of the angry left by endorsing Ned Lamont's candidacy or will she support the man who was chosen by Al Gore as the Democrat's 2000 nominee for Vice President?"
Do you think that Missouri voters will connect the two? Absolutely not. No one in Missouri will care what happened in Connecticut when they go to the ballot box in November. Its not a pivotal sticking point that's going to swift boat a candidate.
Furthermore, the race in Missouri is about health care, stem cells, and Iraq. Talent came on the wrong side of the coin on all of those positions and he's now going to pay a hefty price. Plus, McCaskill can flip the issue on Talent by asking: Where do you stand on the Iraq War, Jimbo? Are you for it, or against it?
Mike Allen also tries to connect it to the broader election:
Gleeful Republicans across the country mocked their opponents as isolationist "Defeat-ocrats," and even some Democratic officials said they can already imagine the ads in November races saying that Lieberman, once within a few hundred votes of being Vice President of the United States, is now "not liberal enough" for the Democratic Party. Republican officials, who have had little but bad news for months as Iraq festered and U.S. voters showed increasing signs of pessimism and discontent, said the Ned Lamont victory gave them a chance to paint Democrats as a party that had become captive to the liberal wing symbolized by the MoveOn.org civic action group. Mary Matalin, an outside adviser to the White House, signaled the message when she said on Fox News Channel shortly after the polls closed: "MoveOn is not fringe. They're the heart of the party."
No voter is going to vote against a Democratic candidate simply because of his/her support of Ned Lamont. What happened last night was a wake up call to all pols that if you support the War and don't bring our troops home to a hero's welcome, then we're giving you the boot. Democrat or Republican, you're going home.
What bothers me is not that Mike Allen at Time wrote an article from this point of view, he took ate up the talking points from the RNC, et al. and didn't bother to offer his own, unique analysis offering a slightly different view:
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking to the City Club of Cleveland this morning, said the rejection of a well-liked Senator who was strong on national defense showed that Democratic candidates must embrace "defeatism and isolation" or "risk being purged" for their party. "For those of us who follow politics closely, who work in politics, and who know that there can be good and honest people on the other side of the political divide, it is a shame," he said. "It is also a sign of what the Democratic Party is has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a ?blame America first? attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."
See the difference? I can't! Mike Allen is simply cutting and pasting Melman's thoughts into his own column. He should be ashamed of himself.
Lamont's victory is great for Democrats and bad for Republicans for a few reasons. First, Democrats are energized. It shows that even during the August days of Summer, old Democrats and new Democrats are willing to make an effort to send beltway pols that its time to listen to your constituents. The wind is in our back this election and if we make it a single-issue campaign in receptive districts and states, we have a chance.
Secondly, and more importantly, this gets our Party's officials in line with a message. The message is: drink the blue kool-aid, not not the red kind, or go home. We need a unified Party, willing to set aside pork projects, special interests, and the like for people power.
Finally, Lamont's victory legitimizes the net roots movement. We were a fluke in 2004. Now we're a movement.
Watch out Mike Allen, Ken Mellman, and Slow-Joe, we're crashing the gate!